Karupaiyan v. Experis IT
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-04675
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Karupaiyan v. Experis IT, Judge Schofield denied Palani Karupaiyan’s motion without prejudice because defendants’ response and pending dismissal motion made summary judgment premature.
Palani Karupaiyan’s request for permanent injunctions, declaratory orders, and summary judgment was denied without prejudice. The defendants’ pending motion to dismiss remained pending, and the order did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Karupaiyan v. Experis IT, Palani Karupaiyan, who was representing himself, asked for permanent injunctions, declarations, and summary judgment. The request relied in part on the argument that the defendants responded late to the amended complaint.
The court denied the application without prejudice. It stated that the defendants had timely filed a motion to dismiss instead of an answer, and that motion was fully briefed. The court said that if any claims survive the pending motion to dismiss, either side may submit letters seeking permission to make a summary-judgment motion after discovery closes.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 47 and mail the order to Karupaiyan. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Karupaiyan v. Experis IT · No. 1:21-cv-04675
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 25, 2022
Background
Palani Karupaiyan filed a motion seeking permanent injunctions, declaratory orders, and summary judgment. The supporting affidavit argued that Experis US Inc., ManpowerGroup US Inc., Jonas Prising, and Samantha Moore had responded late to the amended complaint. Karupaiyan asserted that the alleged late response entitled the plaintiffs to judgment and the requested relief.
The opinion states that the amended complaint was filed on January 25, 2022. In response, the defendants timely filed a motion to dismiss, which they were permitted to file instead of an answer. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed when the court considered Karupaiyan’s motion.
Ruling
The court denied the application without prejudice. The court explained that the motion appeared to be based on the defendants’ supposedly untimely response, but the defendants had timely filed a motion to dismiss. The court therefore did not grant the requested injunctions, declarations, damages, or summary judgment.
The court stated that, if any claims in the amended complaint survive the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, either party may file letters seeking permission to make a summary-judgment motion after discovery closes. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 47 and mail a copy of the order to Karupaiyan, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
Scope of the Decision
This order addressed the procedural handling of the motion and the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. It did not resolve the merits of the claims listed in Karupaiyan’s affidavit.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.